he bottom line is that when Android premiered many here (I believe that would include yourself) said it would never catch up to iOS.
Android shipping thousands of copies for which Google gains no direct revenue (especially the Verizon editions that have NO google software on them and Bing instead of google) hardly is the same as Apple selling each and every iOS device, making direct profit on that sale in hardware and software, and also making just as much or more indirect revenue as Google does for Android.
You want to measure success? Let's compare Google and Apple's financials. When Google passes them you might have a point.
Quote:
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well.
What fools we all are - you are absolutely right! Mobile devices are EXACTlY like desktop computing wars from 20 years ago. In fact this chart proves it:
Or are we on the "companies that make money are evil" class warfare crap that seems to be permeating our society these days?
Right. By that standard, Apple would be one of the most EEEEEEVVVIIIILLLL companies in the world!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
In which case, I'm happy to participate in Apple's kind of evil.
Quote:
Apple being successful doesn't equate consumers loosing. In fact, it's just the opposite. Apple's current success allows them greater opportunity to develop that "next big thing" that as a consumer I benefit from. The mere existence of Apple provides new and unique alternatives and choice. If you don't think so, perhaps you should re-evaluate and consider why is it almost the entire tech press that criticizes Apple for not operating just like everyone else?
Don't like the Apple way? Great! There are plenty of other choices out there - have at them!
Excellent point. If Apple built crap products and lied/cheated/stole their way to the top, then the "consumers are getting duped out of their money" meme would hold. Yes, Apple's money comes from customers (duh!), but in exchange, customers get "the whole widget"--top quality hardware and software that plays nice together.
And, consumers in general (Apple customers, and everyone else) benefit, because for the last 10 years, Apple has been the rudder that has steered the ship. Apple may not have the overall best market share, but they've basically set the standard for profitable and ethical business practices.
Right. By that standard, Apple would be one of the most EEEEEEVVVIIIILLLL companies in the world!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
In which case, I'm happy to participate in Apple's kind of evil.
Excellent point. If Apple built crap products and lied/cheated/stole their way to the top, then the "consumers are getting duped out of their money" meme would hold. Yes, Apple's money comes from customers (duh!), but in exchange, customers get "the whole widget"--top quality hardware and software that plays nice together.
And, consumers in general (Apple customers, and everyone else) benefit, because for the last 10 years, Apple has been the rudder that has steered the ship. Apple may not have the overall best market share, but they've basically set the standard for profitable and ethical business practices.
I agree on that last sentiment. I think it applies to somewhat Google, too.
Why all the criticism of this decision? It was both inevitable and correct. And Apple fans who truly buy Jobs' argument about "integrated" platforms, should be cheering this move on.
In any event, all their closing up is Honeycomb. Not all of Android. And the way I read it, this is to prevent some OEMs from trying to push out Honeycomb on to hardware (phones, tablets with buttons, etc.) not designed for it. Until Honeycomb can do that, it would make sense to me for Google to release it. And it's not like you can't get the Gingerbread source code, in the meanwhile.
What I found highly irritating in all this, is the conflation of "open" as a concept, with open source and an adherence by both Apple and Google to very orthodox positions. I don't buy the "we need to control the platform to control the experience" argument. There are crap apps in the App store. If Apple truly cared, it would cull them. They don't. So I can only see this as an excuse. And to me, the fight over services like Google Voice, banning political cartoons, etc. just shows, that Apple's desire for control has nothing to do with concern over quality. If it did, they could easily offer a curated App Store and let users sideload apps at their own risk from elsewhere. That's a clear choice. You can stick with Apple quality or run the risk of downloading crap from elsewhere.
On the other hand, as an Android user, Google's stance, strikes me as puzzling and annoying. The platform allows non-Market apps. That's as it should. The iPhone is one of the first (or only) smartphone platform which does not allow non-approved apps. But if that's the case, then why not curate the Android Market? There are alternatives for apps that don't make the cut. And there's also the practice, of the trial period. If that's in place, why have "lite" apps? Policies like these just don't make sense to me.
So personally, I'm on the fence. I use Android right now...simply because Apple is just a little too closed for me (and there's some features I really like...the browser, widgets, Flash (on occassion...like when certain cricket games are on...)). And I'd fully consider switching if Apple incorporated some of those features (better zooming on the browser, better notifications, widgets....all it would take to win me over). On the same token, I really do think Google needs to assert more control. And I'm glad they are doing this. As long as this stance does not evolve into a removal of user control (disallowing sideloading of apps, etc.), I don't see it as a betrayal of their desire to be more open. I'd say a moderate stance is probably more in line with what most users would like. At least for me, I dislike zealots, of any stripe.
Comments
he bottom line is that when Android premiered many here (I believe that would include yourself) said it would never catch up to iOS.
Android shipping thousands of copies for which Google gains no direct revenue (especially the Verizon editions that have NO google software on them and Bing instead of google) hardly is the same as Apple selling each and every iOS device, making direct profit on that sale in hardware and software, and also making just as much or more indirect revenue as Google does for Android.
You want to measure success? Let's compare Google and Apple's financials. When Google passes them you might have a point.
After 20 years of trying Apple has barely 10% of the computer market, and we are now seeing iOS growth begin to level off as Apple settles into a minority position in the emerging mobile market as well.
What fools we all are - you are absolutely right! Mobile devices are EXACTlY like desktop computing wars from 20 years ago. In fact this chart proves it:
http://ycharts.com/search?q=GOOG%2C%...ket_cap#zoom=5
Whoops! I guess not. That was embarrassing....
Let's reconvene here this time next year and see if you're so full of swagger then....
Ha! That's rich. I have a feeling you won't be here next year - and if you are it will be a sock puppet of a different name.
Or are we on the "companies that make money are evil" class warfare crap that seems to be permeating our society these days?
Right. By that standard, Apple would be one of the most EEEEEEVVVIIIILLLL companies in the world!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
In which case, I'm happy to participate in Apple's kind of evil.
Apple being successful doesn't equate consumers loosing. In fact, it's just the opposite. Apple's current success allows them greater opportunity to develop that "next big thing" that as a consumer I benefit from. The mere existence of Apple provides new and unique alternatives and choice. If you don't think so, perhaps you should re-evaluate and consider why is it almost the entire tech press that criticizes Apple for not operating just like everyone else?
Don't like the Apple way? Great! There are plenty of other choices out there - have at them!
Excellent point. If Apple built crap products and lied/cheated/stole their way to the top, then the "consumers are getting duped out of their money" meme would hold. Yes, Apple's money comes from customers (duh!), but in exchange, customers get "the whole widget"--top quality hardware and software that plays nice together.
And, consumers in general (Apple customers, and everyone else) benefit, because for the last 10 years, Apple has been the rudder that has steered the ship. Apple may not have the overall best market share, but they've basically set the standard for profitable and ethical business practices.
Right. By that standard, Apple would be one of the most EEEEEEVVVIIIILLLL companies in the world!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
In which case, I'm happy to participate in Apple's kind of evil.
Excellent point. If Apple built crap products and lied/cheated/stole their way to the top, then the "consumers are getting duped out of their money" meme would hold. Yes, Apple's money comes from customers (duh!), but in exchange, customers get "the whole widget"--top quality hardware and software that plays nice together.
And, consumers in general (Apple customers, and everyone else) benefit, because for the last 10 years, Apple has been the rudder that has steered the ship. Apple may not have the overall best market share, but they've basically set the standard for profitable and ethical business practices.
I agree on that last sentiment. I think it applies to somewhat Google, too.
In any event, all their closing up is Honeycomb. Not all of Android. And the way I read it, this is to prevent some OEMs from trying to push out Honeycomb on to hardware (phones, tablets with buttons, etc.) not designed for it. Until Honeycomb can do that, it would make sense to me for Google to release it. And it's not like you can't get the Gingerbread source code, in the meanwhile.
What I found highly irritating in all this, is the conflation of "open" as a concept, with open source and an adherence by both Apple and Google to very orthodox positions. I don't buy the "we need to control the platform to control the experience" argument. There are crap apps in the App store. If Apple truly cared, it would cull them. They don't. So I can only see this as an excuse. And to me, the fight over services like Google Voice, banning political cartoons, etc. just shows, that Apple's desire for control has nothing to do with concern over quality. If it did, they could easily offer a curated App Store and let users sideload apps at their own risk from elsewhere. That's a clear choice. You can stick with Apple quality or run the risk of downloading crap from elsewhere.
On the other hand, as an Android user, Google's stance, strikes me as puzzling and annoying. The platform allows non-Market apps. That's as it should. The iPhone is one of the first (or only) smartphone platform which does not allow non-approved apps. But if that's the case, then why not curate the Android Market? There are alternatives for apps that don't make the cut. And there's also the practice, of the trial period. If that's in place, why have "lite" apps? Policies like these just don't make sense to me.
So personally, I'm on the fence. I use Android right now...simply because Apple is just a little too closed for me (and there's some features I really like...the browser, widgets, Flash (on occassion...like when certain cricket games are on...)). And I'd fully consider switching if Apple incorporated some of those features (better zooming on the browser, better notifications, widgets....all it would take to win me over). On the same token, I really do think Google needs to assert more control. And I'm glad they are doing this. As long as this stance does not evolve into a removal of user control (disallowing sideloading of apps, etc.), I don't see it as a betrayal of their desire to be more open. I'd say a moderate stance is probably more in line with what most users would like. At least for me, I dislike zealots, of any stripe.